Certainly, Gentlemen, it ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinions high respect; their business unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasure, his satisfactions, to theirs,—and above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interest to his own.

But his unbiased opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure,—no, nor from the law and the Constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion.

As much as I would personally benefit from MPs making all their decisions based on opinion polls, I think it is wrong. Public opinion is always something to be considered and of influence. But at the end of the day decisions should be made on the basis of whether you believe an action is good or bad.

Mr Craig said that if he was elected, he would vote for gay marriage if his electorate demanded it, in spite of his strong opposition to the law change.

Really? Honestly?

Okay so does this mean if Colin Craig was an electorate MP and a poll showed the majority of his electorate support abortion on demand, Colin Craig would vote for the law to be abortion on demand – no matter how strongly he personally feels it is murder?

I’d like to see an answer to that question. Would Colin Craig vote for abortion on demand if a majority of the electorate backed it?

This entry was posted on Wednesday, February 20th, 2013 at 12:00 pm and is filed under NZ Politics.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.

169 Responses to “Craig says he would vote for gay marriage if electorate backs it”

As much as I would personally benefit from MPs making all their decisions based on opinion polls, I think it is wrong. Public opinion is always something to be considered and of influence. But at the end of the day decisions should be made on the basis of whether you believe an action is good or bad.

What about Key’s comments about the unaffordability of interest-free student loans?
Smile and wave said he knew NZ couldn’t affor them, but it would be a bad “political” call given the electorate’s opinion.

I’ve had a good look in to the practicalities of direct democracy including standing last election and offering it. This question highlights some of the issues you can find. No system is perfect.

Another complication would be if another Conservative MP in another electorate voted for abortion – would Craig be happy with that?

As well as personal conscience issues MPs also have a responsibility for the good of the country, and in some circumstances that could and probably should take precedence over local interests.

I think the only practical way to make more direct democracy work on an electorate basis is to use polling as a strong influence but not binding. Any MP needs to have a means of voting on their conscience.

The key to making this acceptable is goodd communication – if an MP said that he acknowledges the apparent will of the electorate but is voting contrary to that and gave solid and legitimate reasons – personal conscience or for the good of the country, then it should be workable.

I’ve seen quite a few proposals of people power and direct democracy, and in most cases people are not actually wanting better democracy with the rule of the majority, they actually want democracy to back their pet causes.

I think the Greens confuse their democracy model in this way. The asset sale referendum is one example but they do it in other ways as well, there was a local example of this happening on fracking.

For all the talk about marriage equality, gay activists don’t actually have in mind the same thing that heterosexuals typically view as normal. Most seek to radically expand and alter the common understanding of marriage. Long term monogamous fidelity is never part of this new understanding.

Evidence can be provided as to why those in favour of homosexual marriage do not necessarily think in terms of marriage as it is commonly accepted. For example, one homosexual writer, Andree w Sullivan – a favourite of our very own home grown pseudo-Right wing fag stag, Cameron Slater – writes that if homosexual marriage contracts come into force, they would have to be “different”. That is, they would have to allow for “extra marital outlets” and other major changes. That of course undermines the very essence of marriage, which is a covenant for life-long sexual faithfulness.

Sullivan:

I believe strongly that marriage should be made available to everyone, in a politics of strict public neutrality. But within this model, there is plenty of scope for cultural difference. There is something baleful about the attempt of some gay conservatives to educate homosexuals and lesbians into an uncritical acceptance of a stifling model of heterosexual normalcy. The truth is, homosexuals are not entirely normal: and to flatten their varied and complicated lives into a single, moralistic model is to miss what is essential and exhilarating about their otherness

Lesbian activist Paula Ettlebrick:

Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so. … Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family, and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society. … As a lesbian, I am fundamentally different from non-lesbian women. … In arguing for the right to legal marriage, lesbians and gay men would be forced to claim that we are just like heterosexual couples, have the same goals and purposes, and vow to structure our lives similarly. … We must keep our eyes on the goals of providing true alternatives to marriage and of radically reordering society’s views of reality.

“The problem with living in a “secular” country is of course that there is absolutely no moral reference to lay the foundation of what is good, or right, or even sensible.”

Thats right, because ‘the church’ is the only real moral authority we have.

Im sorry but Im calling bollocks to that. The church – which one BTW? – has and never has had ANY moral authority over ‘society’ other than the one it assumed it had. Your church has no moral authority andrei, and thank goodness for that.

The church has demonstrated over hundreds of years its utter lack of anything approaching morality. Go pedal that shit where low IQ labour voters can buy in to it.

Homosexual activists Kirk and Madsen wrote about how “open relationships” are so appealing to homosexual lovers. They speak about the “wayward impulse” as being “inevitable in man-to-man affairs, as in man-to-woman, only, for gays, it starts itching faster”.

They went on to say that:

the cheating ratio of “married” gay males, given enough time, approaches 100%. Men are, after all, as said earlier, more easily aroused than women, who tend to act as a relatively stabilizing influence; a restless gay man is more apt to be led astray by a cute face in the subway or the supermarket. Two gay men are double trouble, arithmetically squaring the probability of the fatal affairette.

William Aaron, a former homosexual activist, explains why concepts such as “monogamy” must be redefined by homosexuals:

In the gay life, fidelity is almost impossible. Since part of the compulsion of homosexuality seems to be a need on the part of the homophile to “absorb” masculinity from his sexual partners, he must be constantly on the lookout for new partners. Consequently the most successful homophile “marriages” are those where there is an arrangement between the two to have affairs on the side while maintaining the semblance of permanence in their living arrangement.

. . . fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society’s moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution that as it now stands keeps us down. The most subversive action lesbians and gay men can undertake – and one that would perhaps benefit society – is to transform the notion of “family” entirely.

Or as he said several years later:

It is also a chance to wholly transform the definition of family in American culture. It is the final tool with which to dismantle all sodomy statutes, get education about homosexuality and AIDS into public schools, and, in short, usher in a sea change in how society views and treats us.

“Would Colin Craig vote for abortion on demand if a majority of the electorate backed it? I doubt it.”

Stupid question, as are all in the same vein. If a question such as this is asked it is asked during the election. Therefore the voters and the candidates have a chance to define/ refine their positions if necessary.

If it turned out the candidate has views so contrary to his electorate, he will not be elected. If the voters agree with him he is elected, and he therefore does what the electorate elected him to do.

Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion.

Your representative, therefore, has to have a well-formed conscience. The morals and life of each person elected need to be held to the highest scrutiny, if we are going to rely on politicians’ consciences.

How many times do we hear that a politician’s private life has no bearing on his decisions in public life? It has every bearing, it tells us what type of person he or she is and whether his or her conscience can be trusted.

If it turned out the candidate has views so contrary to his electorate, he will not be elected. If the voters agree with him he is elected, and he therefore does what the electorate elected him to do.

This “question” argument is a straw man argument.

lol, talk about straw man argument, reddy. Nice one.

No electorate candidate will have 100% exactly the same views as those who elected him or even know his position on very single topic. That’s just absurd. Especially since you do not know everything that possibly may be voted on in the next 3 years anyway.

Not only that, most of the votes are not conscience votes anyway and such a consultation would only apply to those votes.

Besides an electorate candidate should represent all of his electorate and not just those who voted for him.

If government has to be involved in matters of morality or conscience (which it shouldn’t) then MPs should be bound by the promises they make on the election hustings. There are enough people who claim the right to think for me & I feel no need to add MP’s to the list.

Democracy is a shaky affair at the best of times & liars undermine what little say the electorate has.

But in NZ today, at KB, in National, in Labour, if you do that, that is, stand up for the welfare of children – you’re a homophobe!

We should be doing all we can to promote and protect the institutions of marriage and family. Why? Because research shows that the safest place for a child to be, is with his or her biological mother and father.

The job of an MP in a liberal democracy is to withdraw and restrain State interference with the way people choose to live, regardless of how many constituents want the State to tell people how to live or favour one way of living over another. That’s the job he ran for, not being the mouthpiece of a dictatorial majority in his electorate. Read some Hayek, Craig.

“…The job of an MP in a liberal democracy is to withdraw and restrain State interference with the way people choose to live, regardless of how many constituents want the State to tell people how to live or favour one way of living over another. That’s the job he ran for, not being the mouthpiece of a dictatorial majority in his electorate. Read some Hayek, Craig…”

What a fucken load of crap!

Like other peoples money being given back to the people who had it taken from them?

Education being dictated by the state is going to stop then?

Smoking ?…………fuck you really are an idiot missing this one Ryan….as the gay lifestyle shortens peoples lives MORE than smoking does !

The job of an MP in a liberal democracy is to withdraw and restrain State interference with the way people choose to live, regardless of how many constituents want the State to tell people how to live or favour one way of living over another. That’s the job he ran for, not being the mouthpiece of a dictatorial majority in his electorate.

um Ryan nobody is telling people how to live Ryan, least of all Colin Craig. People are free to establish their personal realtionships in any way they choose. Nobody wants to stop them or inhibit them in anyway.

Gay “marriage” is about bringing the State into peoples personal relationships and creating rules and regulations around them

Gay “marriage” is about bringing the State into peoples personal relationships and creating rules and regulations around them

Indeed.

Under the proposed gay marriage laws, state marriage inspectors could soon be knocking on your door, saying “Good Day, Mr & Mrs Jones. I notice you’re married – can I ask why you’re not gay, as is required under the new gay marriage laws?”

um Ryan nobody is telling people how to live Ryan, least of all Colin Craig. People are free to establish their personal realtionships in any way they choose. Nobody wants to stop them or inhibit them in anyway.

Read what I said, Andrei. I included “favour one way of living over another”. The State’s legislation that different-sex couples are legitimised as one thing while same-sex couples are called another is favouring one way of living over another.

Gay “marriage” is about bringing the State into peoples personal relationships and creating rules and regulations around them

It’s about trying to make equal an intrusion that it has no place doing to begin with. The proper way to solve this is to get the State out of marriage altogether.

“….Under the proposed gay marriage laws, state marriage inspectors could soon be knocking on your door, saying “Good Day, Mr & Mrs Jones. I notice you’re married – can I ask why you’re not gay, as is required under the new gay marriage laws?….”

Craig is a Christian conservative. In the odd, we-know-best world inhabited by liberals, this means he’s wrong on any conservative issues if he makes a personal stand, and equally wrong and/or worthy of spite, if he seek to represent the views of his electorate.

I am trying to get a copy of the pamphlet so we know what we are actually debating.

I there are plenty of politicians around that time who could be quoted about sorts of things. Many things have changed since Edmund Burke. Most notably MMP.

I cannot see any justification for allowing MPs who do not have an electorate to make a so called conscience vote on something that was not in any party’s manifesto and the vast majority of voters oppose such legislation oppose. The anti smacking law is a prime example.

Under the proposed gay marriage laws, state marriage inspectors could soon be knocking on your door, saying “Good Day, Mr & Mrs Jones. I notice you’re married – can I ask why you’re not gay, as is required under the new gay marriage laws?”

No, it will be more like, “Good Day, Mr & Mrs Jones. I notice you’re married – can I ask why you’ve withdrawn little Johnny from his new Equality Indoctrination class? Oh I see, you don’t believe that two men can actually be married despite what the law says. Well, this is a problem. I’m not sure you can be considered suitable parents if you don’t allow your child to be taught the new state mandated equality norms which will ensure that Johnny will not grow up to be a bigot. No room for bigots in this society. Now, can I come inside to discuss this with you? …”

Craig is a Christian conservative. In the odd, we-know-best world inhabited by liberals, this means he’s wrong on any conservative issues if he makes a personal stand, and equally wrong and/or worthy of spite, if he seek to represent the views of his electorate.

Damned if he does, damned if he doesn’t.

My personal preference would be that he states his belief and also states that his role as an MP entails that he has no right to impose that belief on others, regardless of what his constituents think.

There are plenty of ways I’d like people to live that they don’t. It’s not my place to force them. I can try to convince them. But beyond reasoning with people or appealing to values I hold in common with them, it is not my place to use any position of power, authority or violence (all of which are basically synonyms) to impose them on others.

I cannot see any justification for allowing MPs who do not have an electorate to make a so called conscience vote on something that was not in any party’s manifesto and the vast majority of voters oppose such legislation oppose. The anti smacking law is a prime example.

You can’t? Really? More like you don’t want to.

It’s called representative democracy. We elect our representatives, list and electorate ones, to represent us in parliament and make informed choices.

I am really amazed how many people get hung by the fact that’s is called “conscience” vote. Call it free vote. Call it non-party vote.
I want them to weigh up the facts and arguments and make an informed decision.

In the old days the parties used to produce things called manifestoes where they laid out their agenda for the next parliamentary term if elected.

And we had representatives, in each electorate the party put up someone to represent them and to sell their ideas to the people.

And the people chose.

But now we have people in parliament who actually received fuck all votes from the electors in theiir electorate promoting policies that appeared on no party manifesto and which if they had would have spelled electoral doom to the individual party.

No we have a ruling clique who think they rule by divine right and who are not beholden to the electorate at all.

The primary role of the state to morally justify its existence is : national defense, judiciary, law & order. Its function is not to make law to legally allow Mr. X to bumfuck Mr. Y , however two consenting male adults can still bumfuck each other given that they consent to the act. The State should not and have no moral authority to do anything about it.

Anyway, I’m not homophobic because I have gay mates. One of my gay mates have tried twice to make a move on me when we were drunk and I told him the last time when he tried, if he ever do that again, then his face will be kissing my fists, so the last party we were both at (last saturday night after the Heroes parade in Ponsonby), he wasn’t trying anything on me. I think he got the message.

There have to be limits to this referenda nostrum. For one thing, I can’t see conservative Catholics swallowing the idea of binding referenda if it means that doing so will increase the perceived “threat” of decriminalisation of voluntary euthanasia or physician assisted suicide through exactly such means. And that has already happened in the US states of Washington and Oregon, as well as almost happened in Massachusetts. Not to mention two Swiss referenda results that maintained access to assisted suicide as well as maintaining overseas European citizens access to it. If the End of Life Choices Bill is debated during this parliamentary session, watch Right to Life declare war on Family First and the Conservative Party over their short-sighted, quixotic stance on binding referenda. David is quite correct, although I suspect the crunch point will come over euthanasia law reform, not the abortion issue.

As for me, I tend to agree with the Prime Minister on this one. Referenda are expensive follies and money from taxation revenue needs to be reserved for core public health and education services. Why do so few of the binding referenda junkies ever seem to have occupied public office and engaged in resource allocation for public services?

Even the Colen Crags party does not support the conservonutters and their bigoted anti gay marriage debate
Is it lonely out there in conservonutter land chucks, Andrei ,redbaiter ,harry it the transsexual homophobe and the rest of you poor bigots?

79.7% of the population were nominally anyway Christian
over 60% were married which means approx 83% o the adult population
80% of all marriages were conducted in Churches
1% of the population was divorced and another 1% separated

It might seem stultifying but there were 4 convictions for murder in the New Zealand of 1962 and 3 for manslaughter 25 convictions for serious assault

New Zealand in those days was a far far safer place.

The “progressives” destruction of Faith and of marriage has come at a very very high price.

Given Colin Craig is only likely to win an electorate seat if National help him – what do his comments actually mean?

He is after all dependent on John Key for access to an electorate that opposes the legislation, or else he will have to support it.

And does he realise that he is commitng the Conservative Party party list to block vote in support of retaining the new 2013 marriage law if it is ever reviewed – on the basis of a majority of New Zealanders supporting it (as they do in polls now)?

If you really believed that you would not have a problem with a referendum then?

Chuck, the problem is with what a referendum represents: a requirement of the majority to approve of the State staying out of people’s lives. Even if 99% of the country agreed with marriage equality, to rely on that 99% for sanction on this issue is to suggest that next week, if 99% of New Zealanders think people with green eyes or people who say “YOLO” should be locked up, then we’ll go with that too.

Chuck – you should know by now that liberal progressive polling is permitted to extrapolate any tiny self-selecting sample to testify to apparently widely held views, while anything even remotely conservative, or worse, smelling of judeo-Christian values, is bagged with objections like the one chiz just made.

ryan – where did I claim to not know the difference? You’re making stuff up.

So let me get this right: According to those who cling to the ‘equality’ justification, equality doesn’t exist now. It will magically come into existence when gays can ‘marry’. And this newly-minted equality will still exist despite the state limiting your choice of marriage partner – right?

Craig said one thing in the Herald article that no-one has mentioned above, and it’s critical. The gay marriage bill also opens the door to gay adoptions.

You know what? That changes the equation completely and if people knew that: i.e. if the MPs told them, opinion against gay marriage would run at least 70/30 against. Guarantee it.

But they don’t talk about that, do they. Quiet as a mouse, aren’t they.

This is what I really hate about politics as it is practised. The disingenuous tactics used, not just in this but in many things, whereby only once the bill passes and it’s all too late, only then is the real agenda revealed.

It makes me wonder about MPs who adopt this tactic and this includes almost all of them: who the fuck do they think they are. This is not their democracy, it’s ours. And how can they possibly claim any moral high ground whatsoever, when they do shit like this? And yet, they do (claim the moral high ground). Which goes way beyond mere disingenuity and crosses into hypocrisy, doesn’t it.

kk – Polling companies that produce unreliable results will go out of business. They go to a lot of trouble to eliminate bias and they do not extrapolate from self-selecting samples as you claim. Referenda on the other hand are not as reliable. A minority, who are vocal and het up may vote in large proportions, but a majority, who aren’t as passionate, may not vote in the same proportions thereby skewing the results.

Craig said one thing in the Herald article that no-one has mentioned above, and it’s critical. The gay marriage bill also opens the door to gay adoptions.

Sigh. Here we go again. No it doesn’t.

A gay man (or a lesbian woman) already can adopt a child. And it already happens under NZ law. But a gay (or lesbian) couple cannot jointly adopt a child, meaning that in cases where a child has been born to one of that couple using a surrogate (or donor sperm), the other half of that couple is left without parental rights over the child even though he or she is in fact serving a parental role. Which makes no sense from a legal or moral perspective.

So what Colin Craig (and Reid) is trying to wave is the “scarey” flag of gay (or lesbian) couples being able to “stranger adopt” – that is, have a child placed with them by CYFS and have a joint adoption order made by the courts (which only married couples can get). Three things to note about this:

(1) Such placements are only made with the active consent of the child’s biological mother (and biological father, if he’s in the picture). That is to say, before any gay (or lesbian) couple were able to “stranger adopt”, that child’s birthmum (and maybe birthdad) would have to positively agree to the child being placed with and raised by that couple.

(2) Such placements are only confirmed by the Family Court (and an adoption order made) if it is “in the best interests of the child” for such to happen.

(3) There were only a little over 50 (yes, that’s right, 50) such “stranger adoptions” in NZ last year.

And Ryan Sproull demonstrates just how moronic so called progressives really are.

There is a fundamental difference between a procreative male/female pairing and one composed of two individuals of the same gender.

This is the way God and nature have designed it.

Anyway who gives a shit, you morons are part of a dying civilization and you are too fucking stupid to see it – a degenerate bunch who edeserve to be overwhelemed and overwhelmed you will be – I give you twenty years at most.

And good fucking riddence – you have the crime of mass murder of your infants to answer for and this absolute evil, this crime gainst humanity will cost you dear

I prewsume you are also a part of this supposed dying civilisation Andrei. If so you are as responsible for what is happening as anyone else. Have you ever considered that your approach may not be working?

The argument about the state staying out of people’s lives by allowing gay marriage is surely bogus. Marriage is a natural pairing of a man and woman that existed before the state. Before government, before even kings there was marriage. First mentioned in the Bible with the pairing of the first two human beings, Adam and Eve.
Gay marriage in contrast is purely a creation of the state. So it represents a relatively small number of gay activists using the power of the state to impose homosexuality as worthy of the status of marriage. So it is an excellent example of the state interfering in people’s lives.
It will require heaps of legislation changes and will inevitably lead to persecution of conservatives and Christians by the state. But when pastors go to jail and churches are fined out of existence for not allowing gay marriage on their premises no doubt many on this thread will congratulate themselves on how wonderful it is that the state is not intruding in people’s lives.

Quoting Burke is complete bullshit with respect to NZ in 2013.
The first and foremost duty of an MP is allegiance to the reigning sovereign of NZ.
The first and foremost duty of a member of Cabinet is good counsel to the reigning sovereign of NZ in NZ’s national interest and to maintain Cabinet confidentiality.
Their conscience or their local electorate wishes (if they even have one, List MP’s don’t, isnt MMP great) are subordinate.

Pete George I walked the walk and bought up four kids and invested nearly thirty years of my life and most of my substance in the process.

And they were bought up not to fuck anything that moves, anywhere it takes their fancy, to see abortion as the horror it is and to cross themselves from right to left with three fingers.

I don’t know where you think the next generation of New Zealanders is going to come from and who is going to raise them, my kids will be raising theirs elsewhere so I guess it will be up to Chris Kahui and his progeny to pick up the baton and build the Nation.

Pity you did not let them decide for themselves, if they are smart kids (and I have no reason to assume they are anything but smart) they would have been able to tell you that there is no such thing as God and that the religion you follow is the epitome of evil.

Wat my dear chap, my point is that the state is inventing gay marriage and is an example of government interference in an institution that preceded the state and government.
Leaving marriage alone is an example of the state not interfering in people’s lives.
I’m not sure what slavery has to do with this issue, unless of course you feel marriage and slavery somehow go together

And Ryan Sproull demonstrates just how moronic so called progressives really are.

There is a fundamental difference between a procreative male/female pairing and one composed of two individuals of the same gender.

Yes. There’s also a fundamental difference between a same-race couple and one composed of two individuals of different race. What was your point again?

This is the way God and nature have designed it.

Ohhhh. You think your religious beliefs should be imposed on everyone. Sorry, bud. This is a liberal democracy. Saudi Arabia is down the road.

Anyway who gives a shit, you morons are part of a dying civilization and you are too fucking stupid to see it – a degenerate bunch who edeserve to be overwhelemed and overwhelmed you will be – I give you twenty years at most.

You’re too kind. And look how respectful and mature!

And good fucking riddence – you have the crime of mass murder of your infants to answer for and this absolute evil, this crime gainst humanity will cost you dear

The point being that the venerability of an institution is completely irrelevent and tells us nothing about its morality or worth.
If the role of the state is simply to enforce and rubber stamp ancient customs then let’s bring back pogroms, bear-baiting and droit de seigneur.

A secular, democratic state based on individual liberty must no more enforce Christian bigotry then it would Muslim bigotry. The is particularly true since all so-called Christians and Muslims are raknk hypocrites.

Ryan, you’re talking bullshit again ! Equality means equal, so one should equally be able to marry one’s sister, mother, father, or all of the above to be truly equal. It is a dishonest argument in the extreme to claim that “equality” means only SOME things can be called equal. You might like to think that to extend the equality banner to incest is a step too far now, and that’s probably right, but that’s your (and the gay marriage proponents) argument framing.

And we already have marriage equality, everyone can marry exactly the same as everyone else.

One is the proposition that western christendom needs the help of the gay community – where each homosexual man and each lesbian woman marry each other in a church – to help us outbreed the non Christians of the planet, or otherwise our civilisation is doomed.

One thing about Australia, it has a real right wing political force (Not the Liberal party, as infested with cowards and traitors as National, the Republicans and the UK Conservatives) within society, unlike NZ which is almost extreme left wall to wall.

Ryan, you’re talking bullshit again ! Equality means equal, so one should equally be able to marry one’s sister, mother, father, or all of the above to be truly equal. It is a dishonest argument in the extreme to claim that “equality” means only SOME things can be called equal. You might like to think that to extend the equality banner to incest is a step too far now, and that’s probably right, but that’s your (and the gay marriage proponents) argument framing.

And we already have marriage equality, everyone can marry exactly the same as everyone else.

Ed Snack, two questions:

1. Was ending a ban on interracial marriage in the US a move towards equality?
2. If so, could that still be called equality while there were still other restrictions on marriage?
3. If not, what would you call the value that motivated that move?

Wat, my point was in response to the view that people who oppose gay marriage are statists who are promoting government interference in people’s lives. My point is that marriage is not an invention of the state and existed before the state. Gay marriage is an invention of the state and would not exist without major government legislation. So the people who are for gay marriage are the ones promoting government interference in people’s lives.

Your point about secular liberal democracy should not promote religious values is an invention of your own choosing and seems to represent your own preferences. Who says our country should be secular? Helen Clarke? You?

What about all those people who are Christian in this country? Don’t they have a say?

Of course, that all changed when things like the Smacking Law came around. Even when there was a referendum that showed clearly that the majority of the people were against the changes to smacking, Key wouldn’t budge on the idea. Wouldn’t change a thing: not even considering the Boscawen amendment. So much for the will of the people now.

Hypocrisy at it’s finest; almost quoting Burke, then doing a flip-flop.

Nalliah said multiculturalism is assimilating the “silent majority” to accept minority culture. This, he said, has never worked in many countries in the West. He declared “Australia for Australians” to the cheers and uproar of supporters at the National Press Club in Canberra.

Supported by UK-born climate sceptic Lord Christopher Monckton, RUAP has also launched the Victoria State Campaign on September 16.

ps, good points Urban Redneck @12.39pm and @1pm- as good an argument as there is.
They want to redefine marriage, not just in terms of who can participate in it, but also the very definition in terms of fidelity and being faithful to one person. We’ve already seen the confusion around the subject of adultery if gay marriage were taken up.

If gay marriage laws are passed then marriage won’t mean what it does now. Homosexuals will overlay their philosophies and lifestyles on top of it – things that are not compatible with the traditional institution of marriage – and change its very meaning.

Thus, the very thing they say they want will not have its original value or meaning any more.

If gay marriage laws are passed then marriage won’t mean what it does now. Homosexuals will overlay their philosophies and lifestyles on top of it – things that are not compatible with the traditional institution of marriage – and change its very meaning.

Thus, the very thing they say they want will not have its original value or meaning any more.

The State isn’t magic, Fletch. My marriage isn’t going to mean anything different after gay couples can marry than it does now.

Can you explain further just what’s going to happen to my marriage to my female adult wife when gay adult marriages are recognised by the State? Will I feel different when I wake up that morning? Will oaths be worn down to 60%? Will I love her less, Fletch? Is that what’s going to happen?

What about all those people who are Christian in this country? Don’t they have a say?

They have as much say as anyone else. And there will no doubt be a wide variety of Christian says.

LOL – New Zealand was a Christian country 50 years ago, it was a given our laws were based upon Christian morality. Gradually this has been surrendered as the marxists who are too dumb to realize for the most part that they are following Marx have done their thing

Biggest irony of my life is the interchange between the East which was godless when I was born and the West which was Christian and how that has flipped.

LOL – New Zealand was a Christian country 50 years ago, it was a given our laws were based upon Christian morality. Gradually this has been surrendered as the marxists who are too dumb to realize for the most part that they are following Marx have done their thing

Biggest irony of my life is the interchange between the East which was godless when I was born and the West which was Christian and how that has flipped.

Is it a Christian country or a democracy, Andrei? It can’t be both, so pick which one you want. The Christian equivalent of Sharia Law, or freedom from one religion being imposed on everyone regardless of their own creed or lack thereof.

Is it a Christian country or a democracy, Andrei? It can’t be both, so pick which one you want.

Of course it can be both, the two things compliment one another.

If the politicians get out of line in a sensible Nation, the bishops can call them to order. This is why politicians have undermined the church, they hate not having a monopoly on the peoples souls and want to be the sole arbiters of what is right and wrong

Another absurdity is the claim that marriage took place with the first couple of humans – and thus preceded government (if so also preceding religion)

1. there would have been no one to marry them, they were a de facto couple.
2. human institutions afterwards formalised marriage – parents wanted people found naked with their children to commit to being partners to them or else. These institutions were part of the origin of both religion and government.

I want even go into the claim of first couple as recent as 6000 years ago, or mention the complexity of homo sapien emergence via evolution and determining a time for a first couple.

Ryan, of course it changes marriage. How can you be so incapable of foresight?
If it weren’t going to change then why would gay activists say –

. . . fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society’s moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution that as it now stands keeps us down. The most subversive action lesbians and gay men can undertake – and one that would perhaps benefit society – is to transform the notion of “family” entirely.

That doesn’t sound like marriage not “meaning anything different”?

As one gay points out on his blog ‘Gays Against Gay Marriage” –

As this Salon column (which links to us!) points out, gay marriage is in fact a threat, but not to families or straight marriage. It’s another nail in the coffin of outwardly acceptable gay sexual freedom. I say outwardly, because we all know boys are gonna have their fun anyhow — they’ll just feel worse about it. Society has been moving toward greater freedom in many social areas: girls are now more empowered to be sluts if they so choose, homosexuality in general is more accepted than ever, fetishes of all kinds are quite legally represented in pornography and more openly spoken of in public and media than ever before. Many people see this as a threat to Out Christian Culture, and I agree and cheer as all us deviants should.

But now some gays, because they grew up with the ideal of the white wedding (despite the fact only girls wear the dresses) and religion-based monogamy, want to stomp on the brakes of all this progress. Let’s drop all this wonderful freedom and mimic the ceremonies that celebrate the ancient, oppressive domination of the Church over men, and of men over women.

I say all this because of the big deal made over the difference between civil unions and “marriage.” Gay activists are rejecting civil unions that are literally identical to state-enforced marriage contracts except in name, on principle. This is because they want to mimic the religious heterosexuals that hate them. It’s also to send the message that gays can be just as boring and domestic as religious weirdos; a desperate desire to be seen as a “traditional family.” Sorry, honey, as long as your junk don’t interlock, you’re not. This has transcended mere legal equality and the convenience of standard-form contracts and crossed into ceremonial jealously.

Knock it off. You’re a queer. Get used to it. And go suck a few dicks.

The fear of some (single men clubbers) gays of commited relationship is expressed in their fear of the right to marry. But it is not an argument against it.

The argument is similar to the one made for priestly celibacy – so they can focus on the church (single men clubbers just want to focus on being promiscuous, career women on their career etc). Sure some gay men have used their earlier criminalisation and continued inability to marry to pretend that their promiscuity was freedom fighting or part of some revolutionary challenge to the establishment – so they now fear acceptance may force them to grow up.

And bi-sexual women, those with an open marriage and those in polyamorous arrangments, have always been at the vanguard of challenging patriarchal supremacism. Aided and abetted by their lesbian handmaidens.

Scott – are people who are for gay marriage really the ones promoting government interference in people’s lives? Being offended that other people can marry is not an inteference in your life or anyone else’s.

And when you say that Christians should be able to act to impose another order on society than the secular one, you further undermine any point you may have been trying to make.

Marriage has been universally acknowledged throughout history as a legal contract between a man and a woman in which there is emotional and sexual fidelity, along with childrearing. But homosexual marriage would change this. Since marriage is also a moral issue, redefining marriage is redefining morals. Furthermore, marriage is an extremely wide-spread practice within any society and has many legal and moral issues attached to it. So, when marriage is redefined, the society is dramatically affected. Legalizing gay marriage means changing the laws of the land. The ramifications are vast and we are seeing the effects of homosexual legal “rights” affecting housing, education, the work place, medicine, the armed forces, adoption, religion, etc. Are all the changes good? That is hotly debated. But we have to ask, is it morally right to force all of society to adopt the morals of a minority?

The site also, helpfully, has a list –

So, how would gay marriage harm anyone? First, let’s define harm. Harm is damage to a person physically, emotionally, mentally, spiritually, financially, morally, etc. The definition is obviously broad and subjective, and this is problematic. People experience harm in different ways.

Here is a list of ways in which gay marriage can bring harm.

1. It can bring huge financial and emotional stress.

* Homosexuals can sue people who are exercising their religious beliefs. For example, a heterosexual married couple with children who do not want to rent a room in their own family household to homosexuals could be sued for discrimination based on “sexual orientation.” This can incur significant financial and emotional stress upon the family, not to mention the “prior restraint” effect of the fear of being sued which results in a family not renting out a room.

2 The health risks are enormous to themselves and others.

* The fact is that homosexuals do not live as long as heterosexuals due to the health risks associated with the lifestyle, and billions of dollars are spent annually in health care for them. See Statistics on HIV/AIDS and health related issues
* But the HIV/AIDS epidemic is not only in the homosexual community. It has crossed over to the heterosexual community.
* Whether or not you want to say that HIV/AIDS is a homosexual disease, the fact is that it is highly prevalent among the gay and lesbian community due to their great number of sex partners. The collateral damage to the rest of society, as far as health risks, cannot be denied.

3. Gay Marriage means having the morals of the minority forced upon the majority.
* This can also be said in the reverse. Either way, there is a problem. Normally, morals should not be forced on anyone, though there are exceptions. We force morals on others by preventing them from stealing, raping, murdering, etc. So, it is not automatically wrong to force morals on someone. But the issue then becomes what is morally right and wrong in the first place, and altering morals in a society definitely causes stress.
* The percentage of homosexuals in society is less than 5%, yet it is being forced upon the other 95% of society in movies, TV, literature, and political periods. See Statistics on the percentage of the population that are homosexual and lesbian.

4. Gay Marriage means a redefinition of sexual morality, and with it other sexually related practices will be affected and this can be harmful.

* See the article Collateral damage effect as a result the change in sexual morals for a discussion on the increase in pedophilia, pornography, child pornography, prostitution, and sex trafficking that are occurring in the world. These increases are not due to an increase in conservative sexual morals, but a reduction of conservative sexual morals.
5. Gay Marriage reduces the number of children born in society and we need a stable population base to operate properly. Therefore, society can be harmed.
6. Gay Marriage affects people spiritually.

* Don’t assume that people’s spiritual beliefs are irrelevant. People consider spiritual issues to be extremely important, and the stress imposed on religious people by forcing them to “accept” and/or support homosexual practice and/or intimidate them into silence harms a person’s spiritual and emotional health.

7. It forces government to get involved in changing laws which automatically affect everyone in society.
* Homosexuality is being force fed to our youth via the education system.
* Civil unions are being recognized by employers which effect co-workers, money payouts, work time, etc.

8. It exposes adopted children within potential homosexual unions to ridicule from others.

How fascinating. No one’s mentioned the relevance of euthanasia law reform to this whole referenda argument. Would the conservative Catholics here vote for either New Zealand First or the Conservatives if they maintained their current binding referenda obsession, which would therefore threaten to decriminalise euthanasia through plebiscite, manifestly against their wishes? How much longer are they going to maintain this fiction of a ‘gentlemen’s agreement’ over opposition to marriage equality? Methinks I see a large religious wedge in the intermediate future…

* Homosexuals can sue people who are exercising their religious beliefs. For example, a heterosexual married couple with children who do not want to rent a room in their own family household to homosexuals could be sued for discrimination based on “sexual orientation.” This can incur significant financial and emotional stress upon the family, not to mention the “prior restraint” effect of the fear of being sued which results in a family not renting out a room.

Just like a lack of racial discrimination causes harm by exposing families to the stress of being sued if they refuse to rent a room to someone of a particular race they don’t like.

2 The health risks are enormous to themselves and others.

* The fact is that homosexuals do not live as long as heterosexuals due to the health risks associated with the lifestyle, and billions of dollars are spent annually in health care for them. See Statistics on HIV/AIDS and health related issues
* But the HIV/AIDS epidemic is not only in the homosexual community. It has crossed over to the heterosexual community.
* Whether or not you want to say that HIV/AIDS is a homosexual disease, the fact is that it is highly prevalent among the gay and lesbian community due to their great number of sex partners. The collateral damage to the rest of society, as far as health risks, cannot be denied.

Gay marriage will have no effect on the amount of homosexual sex occurring.

3. Gay Marriage means having the morals of the minority forced upon the majority.
* This can also be said in the reverse. Either way, there is a problem. Normally, morals should not be forced on anyone, though there are exceptions. We force morals on others by preventing them from stealing, raping, murdering, etc. So, it is not automatically wrong to force morals on someone. But the issue then becomes what is morally right and wrong in the first place, and altering morals in a society definitely causes stress.

The examples there are of preventing direct harm by one person to another’s person or property. Legal equality of same-sex couples by legally recognising their marriages does not cause harm, and is not forcing morals on people. You can have anti-homosexual morals, or anti-Japanese morals, or whatever morals you like. Gay marriage doesn’t stop you.

* The percentage of homosexuals in society is less than 5%, yet it is being forced upon the other 95% of society in movies, TV, literature, and political periods. See Statistics on the percentage of the population that are homosexual and lesbian.

No one is forcing you to watch or read those movies, TV shows or books.

4. Gay Marriage means a redefinition of sexual morality, and with it other sexually related practices will be affected and this can be harmful.

* See the article Collateral damage effect as a result the change in sexual morals for a discussion on the increase in pedophilia, pornography, child pornography, prostitution, and sex trafficking that are occurring in the world. These increases are not due to an increase in conservative sexual morals, but a reduction of conservative sexual morals.

Gay marriage does not mean a redefinition of sexual morality.

5. Gay Marriage reduces the number of children born in society and we need a stable population base to operate properly. Therefore, society can be harmed.

Gay marriage does not reduce the number of children born in society.

6. Gay Marriage affects people spiritually.

* Don’t assume that people’s spiritual beliefs are irrelevant. People consider spiritual issues to be extremely important, and the stress imposed on religious people by forcing them to “accept” and/or support homosexual practice and/or intimidate them into silence harms a person’s spiritual and emotional health.

Diddums. No one is forcing people to change their spiritual or religious views. You can have whatever anti-gay, anti-race, anti-whatever religious beliefs – you just can’t use the machinery of the State to impose them on others.

7. It forces government to get involved in changing laws which automatically affect everyone in society.
* Homosexuality is being force fed to our youth via the education system.

No, it isn’t.

* Civil unions are being recognized by employers which effect co-workers, money payouts, work time, etc.

Same thing happened when interracial marriages started being recognised by employers.

8. It exposes adopted children within potential homosexual unions to ridicule from others.

Fletch, must your side of the debate slavishly imitate everything the US Christian Right say or do? Probably, given that it provides you lot with your chief propaganda fix, as well as tactics and strategy. Worked that one out a long time ago. Useful in pre-empting it.

CG, given that arguments for an against gay marriage are universal, must your side imitate everything the US Liberal Left says? I thought so.
Truth is Truth no matter what country you come from; it’s universal, and so are arguments for and against gay marriage.

Ryan, again – you have no foresight and your rebuttals are simplistic.
One only has to look at what the Pope of the time said 40 years ago would happen as regards contraception. They probably said he was wrong as well, but what he said has pretty much come to pass.

Pope Paul VI predicted that:

1. Contraception would lead to conjugal infidelity.

2. Contraceptive practice would lead to a “general lowering of morality.”

3. Contraception would lead men to cease respecting woman in their totality and would cause them to treat women as “mere instruments of selfish enjoyment” rather than as cherished partners.

4. And finally, widespread acceptance of contraception by couples would lead to a massive imposition of contraception by unscrupulous governments.

2. Contraceptive practice would lead to a “general lowering of morality.”

3. Contraception would lead men to cease respecting woman in their totality and would cause them to treat women as “mere instruments of selfish enjoyment” rather than as cherished partners.

4. And finally, widespread acceptance of contraception by couples would lead to a massive imposition of contraception by unscrupulous governments.

All has come to pass.

1. Conjugal infidelity is not contraception’s fault, it’s infidelity’s fault.
2. “General lowering of morality” implies that one religion’s morality should be used as the measure for morality of a whole society, and we live in a liberal democracy, not Saudi Arabia.
3. That was going on long before contraception.
4. Widespread acceptance of contraception by couples has no bearing on what an unscrupulous government will do.

Thanks for those good arguments fletch. Having done so in the past, I can only suggest to you that arguing with Ryan is not a good use of one’s time. He was a Christian but is now in apostasy and argues against everything he believed in the past. However his arguments appear to be “no it doesn’t”. Simple assertions with no basis than his own opinion.

A couple of thoughts – the argument about what that will do to one’s own marriage is based on the premise – people should be able to do whatever they like as long as it does not hurt anyone else. However from the Conservative point of view we would not agree with that premise. Society is an organism. People are connected together like a body – in marriage, in families and in community. Therefore the moral decline in the status of marriage affects everybody. So compared to 60 years ago we have a very high crime rate. One of the reasons is that young men do not have a father figure at home to teach them right from wrong and how to use their strength responsibly to look after those weaker than themselves. This is a direct result of the move away from marriage to families often based on a solo mother trying to be mum and dad.

Secondly gay marriage will almost certainly result over time in an increase in homosexual activity. Ryan denies this. But I would imagine gay activists would welcome more people becoming homosexual as homosexuality becomes a mainstream activity blessed with the union of marriage. One can see in ancient Greece where men got married to a woman who had the children. But the real object of their affection and love was a boy. And when I say boy I do mean boy. So homosexuality was almost universal amongst the cultural elite.

Given the example of ancient Greece if gay marriage goes through in New Zealand then homosexuality will become more accepted and we would expect homosexual activity to increase. We would expect more people to practice homosexuality. And I am sure that gay activists would expect that too.

Thanks for those good arguments fletch. Having done so in the past, I can only suggest to you that arguing with Ryan is not a good use of one’s time. He was a Christian but is now in apostasy and argues against everything he believed in the past. However his arguments appear to be “no it doesn’t”. Simple assertions with no basis than his own opinion.

I said a lot more than “No, it doesn’t,” Scott. Please either read more carefully or don’t lie.

I did say “No, it doesn’t” a few times. Let’s take that to mean, “Why on earth would you think that?” For example, Fletch claims that gay marriage will lead to more gay sex which will lead to more sexually transmitted disease. I agree that more gay sex will lead to more sexually transmitted disease, just as more of any sex will lead to more sexually transmitted disease. But I don’t see why Fletch thinks that legal recognition of gay marriage will result in more gay sex.

A couple of thoughts – the argument about what that will do to one’s own marriage is based on the premise – people should be able to do whatever they like as long as it does not hurt anyone else. However from the Conservative point of view we would not agree with that premise. Society is an organism. People are connected together like a body – in marriage, in families and in community. Therefore the moral decline in the status of marriage affects everybody. So compared to 60 years ago we have a very high crime rate. One of the reasons is that young men do not have a father figure at home to teach them right from wrong and how to use their strength responsibly to look after those weaker than themselves. This is a direct result of the move away from marriage to families often based on a solo mother trying to be mum and dad.

The problem, Scott, is that you’re assuming your own measure of what constitutes “moral decline” should apply to everyone. And everyone else has their own measures of what constitutes morality and moral decline. That’s why we do go with “people should be able to do whatever they like as long as it does not hurt anyone else”. Taking that as a first principle creates a space in our society where everyone can pursue their own conception of the good. You can pursue yours. Others can pursue theirs.

Secondly gay marriage will almost certainly result over time in an increase in homosexual activity. Ryan denies this. But I would imagine gay activists would welcome more people becoming homosexual as homosexuality becomes a mainstream activity blessed with the union of marriage. One can see in ancient Greece where men got married to a woman who had the children. But the real object of their affection and love was a boy. And when I say boy I do mean boy. So homosexuality was almost universal amongst the cultural elite.

You’re assuming that legal recognition of gay marriage will make more people gay, then? And then a slippery slope to paedophilia? I disagree with both, but for the former, it doesn’t matter. It’s not your business if someone else is gay. If you think gay love and gay sex are wrong, don’t fall in love with another man and don’t have sex with another man. For the latter, I disagree with your slippery slope. Legal recognition of same-sex marriages does not necessitate a lowering of the age of consent.

Given the example of ancient Greece if gay marriage goes through in New Zealand then homosexuality will become more accepted and we would expect homosexual activity to increase. We would expect more people to practice homosexuality. And I am sure that gay activists would expect that too.

“Given the example of ancient Greece”, though? Really? Anyway, it’s still none of your business what other grown consenting adults do, and it’s irrelevant to the question of the State implicitly making these kinds of value judgements by calling straight couples one thing and same-sex couples another.

However from the Conservative point of view we would not agree with that premise. Society is an organism. People are connected together like a body – in marriage, in families and in community. Therefore the moral decline in the status of marriage affects everybody.

And Scott, I don’t disagree with a lot of what you’re saying here. I just don’t think that using the machinery of the State to impose your values on everyone is the way to go about it. If you can do that, others can too, and how you live becomes subject to the whims of the majority. Spread your message, try to convince people you’re right and that they should live the way you think they should, but don’t use the machinery of the State to do it.

Ryan, this is actually why I came onto this thread in the 1st place. The machinery of the state is being used to establish gay marriage. That is a fact.

Marriage existed before the State, before there were even kings and queens. When Abraham married Sarah there were no government officials or even nation states. So marriage preceded the state.

Gay activists are demanding that the state create gay marriage, which did not exist before. So you have it completely about-face. It is the other side using the machinery of the state to impose their morality, their view that it is right for a man and a man to marry, on society. Marriage between a man and a woman did not require the state to make it come into being. Gay marriage is purely an invention of the state.

CG has a good point. The issue in the Herald article was about Colin Craig’s idea of democracy. There well be some conservatives Christian or not who only call for a binding referendum when it suits them. However, this sort of hypocrisy would be far more common from the left.

Just look at then calling for a referendum on any issue which way a major issue in the election. National was very clear on their policy regarding partial asset sales.

Ryan, this is actually why I came onto this thread in the 1st place. The machinery of the state is being used to establish gay marriage. That is a fact.

Marriage existed before the State, before there were even kings and queens. When Abraham married Sarah there were no government officials or even nation states. So marriage preceded the state.

Gay activists are demanding that the state create gay marriage, which did not exist before. So you have it completely about-face. It is the other side using the machinery of the state to impose their morality, their view that it is right for a man and a man to marry, on society. Marriage between a man and a woman did not require the state to make it come into being. Gay marriage is purely an invention of the state.

Ideally, Scott, I’d like to see the Marriage Act removed entirely. People can get married, it’s no business of the State’s. But if we are going to have a State-legislated marriage, it should not discriminate on the basis of one group of people’s ideas about how everyone should live.

Liberals are busily destroying the country, and the populace has been so effectively brainwashed over the last 30 or so years that there seems little hope of stopping what’s happening. Depressing but undeniable.

It’s amazing to see how much stupidity and idiocy is being paraded by the liberals posting in this thread.

Keep up the good work Andrei, Lucia, Harriet and others – don’t let the evil go unchallenged.

Colin Craig needs to be a man of principle if I’m to vote for him, not a mealy-mouthed people-pleaser like Key.

I can respect even evil liberals for nailing their colours to the flag and being predictable in what they will and won’t support.

The idea of voting for people who may slither and wriggle in any direction afterward is ghastly.

The private lives of politicians are OF COURSE incredibly important e.g. Shane Jones and his disgusting ‘private’ behaviour (lying, pornography, disrespecting his wife in the process) should have been a far bigger deal than it was, because of what it reveals about the creep.

smallgovernment, I think I agree with you. Like Colin you would have to clarify a little more. I do not think we can turn the clock back 40 or 50 years when if an MP was found to have an affair it could seriously affect his future. Mind you some of them did but they had a cozy arrangement with the Opposition and the press so the public did not get to hear.

I am disappointed Colin has not been prepared to debate the issues on this forum. He could do with the practice. He will have more challenges if he does get to be an MP.

It is a fair question if his policy would apply to abortion and euthanasia like he says it would for homosexual abortion and homosexual adoption.

My vote is going to a party that supports binding referenda on moral issues and has a realistic chance of getting into Parliament.

Marriage was created by society to formalise these relationships – generally because of property (inheritance) rights (there is also the issue of parent and control of the estate – the son’s partner would breed the grandchildren and the daughter could be leveraged to form inter-family alliances (protecting their property from others).

If one defines that of the culture/society that formalises de facto pairings as marriages, as not of government, then who recognised related property rights?

The reason marriage was heterosexual (and other rellationships were not formalised) was because of the nature of the link between procreation and inheritance of property.

In any case marriage/relationship property law is now a creature of government and civil union/same sex de facto partners have relationship issues so modernising the formal institution is a legal matter and now a political formality. The future is not a black President of the USA it is with a woman as President and her first lady.

SPC my dear chap. One is entitled to one’s opinion, one is not entitled to one’s own facts. In the beginning there were de facto relationships and then came marriage is nonsense. Provide lots of evidence please or immediately withdraw your statement.
For your information marriage occurs in the Bible with married couples like Abraham and Sarah who lived around 1800BC.
The ancient Egyptian Pharaohs had wives etc, etc. The evidence for marriage in ancient times and not de facto relationships is so overwhelming that to suggest otherwise is simply not rational.

Scott, another Christian who sneers via their condescending tone? I have demonstrated why your claim that marriage preceded government is logically invalid. Don’t like it, tough. The truth is not going anywhere.

De facto partnerships preceded marriages. Marriages required the development of public institution/collective recognition of individual property rights/government.

1. You claimed marriage preceded government – there is no evidence for this.
2. For marriage to exist, requires the capability to recognise their lawful validity (as distinct from just cohabiting) – that requires government/society collective.
3. Initial cohabitation has to have been de facto – via subsequent area procreation a collective can develop. Then cohabitations can be formalised, this as property rights are being developed to differentiate ownership in that community.

For your information – government existed in the world before the Pharoahs (shortly after 3000BCE). People were getting married at Jericho Canaan pre 5000BCE. It has existed since there was fixed settlement c10,000BCE – time of cultivation of crops and domestication of flocks. It probably occured within governance/public ceremony of hunter gather groups leaving Africa around 60-50,000BCE. But those forming their own group coupling up and having descendants were de facto (no one to perform the ceremony or to preside over the cultural norm/law of this obligation – from dowry to divorce arrangments). Those forming new settlements or hunter gatherer groups as a couple living in a new area would have been either runaways or survivors. The bible refers to Adam and Eve as runaways/outcasts and Noah as a survivor.

As for your dating of Abraham and Sarah – it is not biblical. But it is closer to the facts than the date given for the first couple.

1. who married the first couple – if you say someone not of humanity, then it is not a human insititution

OMG … you are claiming your God controls the institution and not human government. When did the unchanging God decide that men had to stop marrying close relatives (age of Moses?), stop marrying their wives sisters (age of Moses, after Jacob married Leah and Rachel), that polygamy was wrong (NT for Christians and 1000CE for Jews and Moslems still do it where allowed), not allow divorced people to remarry (NT for Christians). So if “God” keeps changing the rules for marriage, what makes anyone so sure that an unchanging God has been involved in making and presiding over the marriage bed insititution, rather than human governance?

2. when homo erectus evolved into homo sapiens were there really just two?

WTF has the existence of marriage in Egypt got to do with evidence for marriage preceding the emergence of government – they had government in Egypt, they even had modern marriage law for divorce – a property share to the wife.

On the point of biblical dating (ignoring the real life spans of people and certain anthropoligical factors such as a cycle of patriarchs with the same name).

The Jewish calender began 3761BCE. Counting the bible account from that time delivers a Terah born in 1883BCE and Abraham born in 1753BCE. Thus the period of his life in Canaan, age 75-175, would have been from 1678-1578BCE.

I suppose those using Christian Ussher dates for “Adam” c4000BCE presume they can recount that time back 240 years (thus Abraham age 75-175 in 1918-1818BCE). Coincidently the Hebrew alphabet count for the letters R (200) and M (40) is 240. I guess Ussher spoke and wrote in the Latin of RoMe.

SPC, your point is that before marriage was de facto relationships. My point is that marriage is very ancient, which you then agree with as you give the example of Jericho Cannan in 5000BC. However the rest of your argument is based on speculation about how societies must have evolved. There is no historical evidence for your claim. It is merely evolutionary speculation.

That was my point. The reference to marriage existing before governments, I need to be more precise. I am saying government in the sense of nation states. Abraham and Sarah lived in an age of tribes and extended family groups, similar to NZ Maori, who incidentally also had marriage and not de facto relationships.

So in the beginning were de facto relationships lacks historical evidence. Lastly I would respectfully suggest you abandon evolution as a first principle. It offers little explanatory value and I actually think it is not true. Creation makes a lot more sense. Finally I wasn’t sneering, I was simply vigorously disagreeing with your argument.

Chuck Bird, hanging your hat on binding referenda is doing the same thing Craig is. I want someone who will nail his colours to the mast, and behave consistently and predictably. A politician shouldn’t be a funnel for the vagaries of popular opinion, he should be his own man and have strong principles so voters can make a choice confident in his integrity.

Politicians like this are obviously a very rare breed. Ron Paul seemed to be although too libertarian for my liking.

Have to agree to disagree Pete my old stick. First two human beings created by God and married by God. I know descending from apes, millions of years, all that sort of thing is fashionable but I just think it’s all bollocks really. The de facto relationships precedes marriage idea is a product of evolutionary speculation and doesn’t have any actual historical data to back it up.
I just don’t know why people abandon faith in God to embrace evolution and consequently atheism. It’s a terrible world view to live by. No hope, no purpose, no love, just blind pitiless indifference.
By the way Pete, when you die, which way are you going to go? Up or down?

Scott, you think the onus to provide evidence is with the other side in this debate. I guess the rationale is the position asserted as the one of faith is only credibly done in the absence of evidence to the contrary. And while those of faith can hope to get away with this, this will continue.

Thus you expect others to have to prove their position or withdraw their dissenting statements – such as the more recent one, withdraw from evolution as a first (evidential) principle in this matter. Asked for, thus with less menace than during the Inquisition, as it must be in modern secular society (Darwin feared prison for releasing his first book on evolution). This is unsurprising from those who would exploit God to position their faith in dominance of society. I will simply note this is why modern society is rejecting God religion (if not God).

I suppose some people believe that others are supposed to be directed and instructed by them – in fact they see it as part of their duty in their work of faith. Being in a positon of authority over others in religion does this to some people. But it is not advantageous in public debate, and probably has disenchanted people change churches as well.

We should cut to the chase, those who claim marriage preceded government only do so because they are seeking (desperately need) secular support for their religious based opposition to marriage law reform. They want support from right wingers against nanny state government. The attempt is to claim marriage as an institution that is accountable to something both before and greater than government. Thus form an alliance between those who claim this is God and those who claim it is the people, all of a design to block liberal change by government legislation.

I find it amusing that religious people taking this approach are thus not prepared to say what they believe that God ordained marriage for the first couple and thus marriage is of God and a ritual of religion. Possibly because marriage tests for religious marriage in a church and a civil ceremony are already different (remarriage of dovorced people etc). So one more change means little. I did outline earlier the many changes to marriage law that occured within biblical religion, so change by man is a long standing practice within Judeo-Christian tradition.

I will say, the bible word (of and about God and man in faith relationship) says God gave man dominion on Earth – governance that clearly included the marriage bed. Man then acting on knowledge of good and evil governed the rules of the marriage bed.

We are born mortal and as for Romans and who is deserving of death, Jesus simply said men should stop presuming to be worthy of determining this – whether in Galilee streets or anywhere else. We die soon enough, we should simpy love each other and let live.

1. there is no evidence for a period when there were only two human beings alive – there is for evolution (out of earlier homo erectus) and homo sapien existence for over 150,000 years and nearly 100,000 for homo sapien sapiens.
2. the only theory of a first couple that co-exists with evolution is ancient astronaut DNA. But there is no evidence.
3. the de facto relationships precedes marriage idea is a product of our awareness of anthropology (way group culture is formed and develops).

The idea that faith in God cannot coincide with respect for historical fact is the real problem for God religion today and why people abandon it, but not God.

Slander of those who no longer belief in the religious myth created by men, in their knowledge of good and evil creating a god in their own image, as people without hope, purpose or love – only pitiless indifference, is unsurprising. Threatening unbelievers with a place down below is the practice of all authoritarian cults when their nakedness is exposed. The Inquisition made it manifest by burning people on crosses – now that was pitiless indifference to human life.

I just don’t know why people abandon faith in God to embrace evolution and consequently atheism.

We all start as atheists. Some are taught about God as children, and some of those subsequently revise their beliefs. Others remain as atheists or move to some hybrid view.

It’s a terrible world view to live by. No hope, no purpose, no love, just blind pitiless indifference.

That’s extremely arrogant and extremely offensive directed at anyone you deem doesn’t meet your standards. Standards that appear to be very low by what you have said here.

And it’s this sort of wretched attitude that is the cause many moderate and reasonable people who have a faith in a god to be given a hard time, tainted by the nonsense espoused by a few extreme intolerants.

Pete, to say we ‘start as atheists’ is idiocy. We start life knowing nothing (although I believe we have a spiritual nature) and are taught – by our parents if they are worth their salt.

SPC, I’d say the onus is on you to make sure that your lack of belief in God is not going to have you end up in hell. You call that a threat (which is ridiculous, because I’m not creating the consequences) – I call it a warning or maybe an excellent reason to seek God to see if there really is something to Christianity.

Many of the atheists here think themselves very clever and look down their noses at Christians. When I read CS Lewis’ Mere Christianity and realised he was smarter than me by a long shot and 50 years ago had addressed all of my essentially schoolboy objections to Christianity, I was able to set them aside temporarily and actually seek God myself (and fortunately, find Him).

The are ‘Old Earth’ Christians, by the way, and many (like me) who have no problem with the possibility that evolution was central in creating the world we have today. However, I diverge from ‘evolutionists’ in believing that whatever the mechanism, God set everything in motion.

Silly academic objections or logical arguments are a poor substitute for seeking an actual experience of God by reading the Bible and praying.